Relevance of a Simulation Model to Microvascular Surgery for Military Surgical Residents.

Introduction: Microsurgical training is an asset for deployed military orthopaedic surgeons who frequently treat hand or nerve injuries in the field. The objective of this study was to evaluate a microvascular surgery simulation model intended to prepare residents prior to their enrolment in conventional microsurgery degree training. Methods: An experimental study was conducted to evaluate technical progress and satisfaction of military surgical residents using a model based on Japanese noodles with four tests of increasing difficulty. Objective endpoints included instruments handling, distribution, and quality of stitches, as well as anastomoses duration. Responses to the Structured Assessment of Microsurgery Skill self-assessment questionnaire were also analyzed. Results: Nine residents from different specialties participated in the study. Their anastomoses quality and average satisfaction significantly increased between the first and the last session (p < 0.05). Conversely, the average operating time decreased significantly over the sessions (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This simulation model seems to constitute a satisfactory initiation to microsurgery and could limit the use of animal models. It could also be included in the continuing education of military surgeons who have an occasional microsurgical practice during deployments.

Application of the Masquelet technique in austere environments: experience from a French forward surgical unit deployed in Chad.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the results of the Masquelet-induced membrane technique (IMT) for long bone defect reconstruction within the limited-resource setting of a French forward surgical unit deployed in Chad. METHODS: A prospective and observational study was conducted in all patients with a traumatic segmental bone defect in any anatomical location treated by IMT from November 2015 to December 2019. Although IMT was applied by various orthopedic surgeons with variable expertise, all followed the same surgical protocol. Endpoint assessment was performed 12 months after IMT application. RESULTS: Sixteen patients with a mean age of 32.7 years were included in the study. Bone defects were located on the tibia (n = 8), the femur (n = 6) or the radius (n = 2). Thirteen bone defects were infected. After debridement, the mean bone defect length was 4.3 cm. External fixation of the tibia and femur was predominant in both stages. Bone union was achieved in only 8 of the 16 cases at a mean time of 7.6 months. All failures were related to persistent infection or insufficient fixation stability in the second stage. CONCLUSIONS: This series is the first to report IMT use in a forward surgical unit. Despite frequent complications, local patients can benefit from this procedure, which is the only available method for bone reconstruction in areas with limited medical resources. A rigorous technical completion at both stages is crucial to limit septic or mechanical failures.

How do patients choose their surgeon? Example of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: In this age of social media, with an ever-higher profile for surgery and rankings for the general public, patients' criteria for choosing a surgeon or team are not precisely known, especially in France. We therefore conducted a prospective study concerning anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: (1) to determine how patients came to know their surgeon; (2) to identify factors affecting final choice. HYPOTHESIS: Patients' choice of surgeon is affected by scores found in social media and rankings found in the press. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective continuous study included all patients operated on, without standardization of technique, in 3 hospitals (public and private sector). An anonymous questionnaire on surgeon selection criteria, scored 0 to 10, was distributed on a voluntary basis on the day of surgery scheduling. RESULTS: One hundred and five patients were included. They had come to know of their surgeon via family or friends or their personal physician in more than two-thirds of cases. The essential criterion of final choice was the clarity of the written and oral information provided in consultation (mean score, 8.09±1.83). Other factors included wait-time to surgery (7.39±2.25) and to first consultation (7.26±2.01) and the surgeon's reputation (7.42/10±2.43). CONCLUSION: "Word of mouth" and the quality if information provided in consultation motivated final choice, more than any influence of social media or press hospital rankings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; prospective observational study without control group.